Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Anonymous Letter Analysis

Analysts sometimes debate the "height" of statement analysis. 

Is it the psycho-linguistic profile that matches the actual psychological evaluation, or is it in the Anonymous Author Identification process where the subject's identity emerges within the anonymous threatening letter. 

The former allows for the investigator to have a strong strategy for the interview and interrogation, knowing not only what happened and where deception exists, but knowing the background and personality type of the subject to use to obtain a confession or admission. 

Here is a letter from "Americans for a Better Way" that the terrorist designate "CAIR" is demanding investigation by the FBI. 

What can we tell from the analysis of the letter?

In assessing a threat, we look to "know" the one making the threat.  This is the best way to gauge the level of threat made in an anonymous letter. 

This anonymous letter does not pose a serious challenge to learn something about the identity of the author. 

What do you see in the language that helps reveal the author?

post your findings in the comments section. 

For formal training, at home or in a seminar, see Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities.  

Katelyn Markham Interview: Part Two

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Katelyn Markham: Taken Too Soon Interview Part One

Katelyn Markham went missing at age 22 and public statements made by her fiancé' John Carter showed deception about what happened to her. 

This is from the documentary, "Taken Too Soon."  

If you wish for training in detecting deception, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services here.  

Besides seminars we offer at home training in a thorough Statement Analysis Course, as well as opportunities for Advanced Training, certification and ongoing live trainings.  

Abdul Razak Ali Artan Statement

An Islamic  terrorist at Ohio State University wounded eleven people when he rammed a car into a crowd of pedestrians before jumping out and stabbing passersby with a butcher’s knife. 
Officer Alan Horujko shot the attacker dead in less than a minute.
Media was quick to denounce the "gun violence." 

“We are very fortunate that an OSUPD officer was there and took 

quick action,” Police Chief Craig Stone told the media. 
Six people were hit by the car and five suffered stab wounds. 

One of the principles of statement analysis is to believe the subject. 
 This plays well in court when challenged on the stand.  Attorneys love to attack believing that detecting deception has to do with unjust and unwarranted suspicion.  They are often baffled when they hear the opposite.  

Under a deposition, I recently testified, "I believed him.  I believed everything he told me."

The attorney was startled into silence.  

"Do you always believe what people tell you ?"

I knew what he was searching for.


Since he was silent, I thought it best to be silent too.  When an attorney takes to lecturing me in court, I do not speak.  He then demands a response. 

I always say, "Your honor, I did not hear a question." 

The transcripts are read back and, sure enough, there is no question to be answered. 

I believe people. 

 I believe what they tell me. 

They have to talk me out of believing them.  This is how deception detection is done. 

 Statistics show that people rarely tell a lie.  They do, but it is rare.  

In the above case, I went on to testify that the assailant in an attempted murder,  did not,  in the several hour interview, say he didn't do it.  
                    "If he can't say, I won't say it for him."

Recently in analyzing a Questionnaire, the subject, a job applicant,  was asked,

"Is everything here and on your application the truth?"

The subject wrote, "yes."   This is all that is required.  

The Questionnaire continues:  If you answered 'yes' to the above question, please tell us why you should be believed."

He wrote, "You shouldn't.  You can't tell if someone is lying..."

  From there he went on to advise on how to detect deception. 

When he told me that I should not believe him, I followed his advice.
 I urge law enforcement and human resource professionals to do the same. 
"When someone advises you not to believe them, take their advice."  

Deception takes place more than 90% of the time by withheld information rather than outright lying.  
Recently, Somalia immigrant Abdul Ali Artan took his car and attempted to run down students at Ohio State University, where students and faculty had rallied to bring in more Islamic immigrants.  
Islam is a supremacist ideology that has sexual assault designated as a reward for devout followers.  I do not discuss a Muslim.  I look at the ideology and the statement.  

He told the student newspaper, The Lantern,  in August he was worried about being visible as a Muslim "in the current environment. "

 We must consider "tacquia" as part of a context, making deception something culturally acceptable.  Listen carefully to what he says:  

I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media.  I'm a Muslim, it's not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don't know what they're going to think, what's going to happen. But, I don't blame them. It's the media that put that picture in their heads so they're just going to have it and it, it's going to make them feel uncomfortable."

Listen to what the subject said:

"I don't blame them."

This is akin to a liar who says, "If I were you, I wouldn't believe me either..." of which I always say, "listen to his words; do not interpret, but listen.  If he allows for you to not believe him, this allowance is important to follow.  

If your daughter hears, "I wouldn't trust me if I were you" I urge fathers to affirm the manipulative love interest's words.
In a Facebook post shortly before launching Monday’s stabbing attack, Artan denounced American foreign policy and called on Washington 

to stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah.

“By Allah, we will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the 

Muslims. You will not celebrate or enjoy any holiday."

The president of the United States told us that any attempt to hinder Muslim immigration would provoke violence. 

I believe him. 

Either let them in or they will become violent.  This is what coercion looks like. It is also part of an ideology of supremacist conquest.  

Statement Analysis 101:  Believe what one tells you unless their words overwhelmingly convince you otherwise.  

The faculty and students at Ohio State University believed that those who come in with this supremacist criminal ideology will "enrich" them with "diversity" and this "diversity" will make them "stronger."

The reaction was to denounce "gun violence." 

Today, some parents are very grateful for the campus police "gun violence" that ended the jihadist knife attack at the school.

Usually, within 24 hours of a jihadist attack, we get a lecture from the terrorist designate "CAIR" condemning us for "Islamophobia."

As Abdul Razak Ali Artan said,

"I don't blame them." 

I don't blame people for being afraid of an ideology that calls for their death or forced enslavement.  

Monday, November 28, 2016

Madeleine McCann: Live Chat Q & A Friday, December 2, 2016

On Friday, December 2, at 12PM Eastern Time (NY Time), we will host a Q & A Discussion on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 

**Space may be limited so please reply in the comments section if you plan to attend.  If you use "Anonymous", please add a nickname to your post.  

This will be by invitation to "Go To Meeting" and will allow for  both Question and Answers about:

Analysis of the case;

Statement Analysis principles and training opportunities.

Also see:  

"Wise As a Serpent; Gentle As a Dove"  for more learning about Statement Analysis and how it is used in cases.  

New Meeting 
Fri, Dec 2, 2016 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST 
Please join our meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
You can also dial in using your phone. 
United States +1 (872) 240-3412 

Access Code: 302-877-197 

Submission of questions and comments is done in writing, and using a headset for the audio is quite helpful for quiet listening.  

A display screen will be up of various statements made by the family including transcripts of interviews.  

This is also an opportunity for those who disagree with the analysis to question or counter any point made, while also allowing for reasoning of what went into the analysis. 

When the McCanns spoke publicly, it is presupposed that the audience will either believe them, or not, with some undecided. 

With Statement Analysis, we are able to give an opinion and state the reasons why we believe or disbelieve them.  

Because this form of analysis is a scientific exercise, if an error is made, the error is able to be traced and corrected; as the same data inputed should produce the same results.  Whether the work is done here in the United States, or on the other side of the world, the even application of principle should produce the same results anywhere in the world.  

Statement Analysis should always be subjected to healthy scientific scrutiny and stand upon its own merit.  

The principles applied to cases remain the same:  Where one intends communication, analysis can and should be done. 

Where one intends to deceive, analysis can highlight this.  

The live discussion will be approximately 2 hours in length and should allow for the various view points and challenges to be made.  

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Madeleine McCann Embedded Confession: Announcement

Richard Hall did an excellent job as an interviewer in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann documentary.  

Readers here know that i embrace "Analytical Interviewing"; that is, a legally sound, non-intrusive method of interviewing a subject where no interpretation is done by the interviewer.  This means the subject interprets his or her own words for us.  

The Analytical Interview is based upon the subject's own words and allows us to "enter into" the language.  

Richard Hall went into the interview well prepared, knowledgeable, and with the purpose of seeking information.  This is not the norm in media where the 'focus' is often the interviewer, himself or herself, for the purpose of ratings.  Mr. Hall sought information in his interview and has, in my opinion, bested some professionals, including some very high paid ones.  He wanted information and fulfilled this role accurately.  Although we strongly follow the 'rules' of Analytical Interviewing in investigatory interviews, law enforcement knows that the rules are guides; not absolutes and will, when need be, interrupt, for example, the subject.  After the interview, law enforcement will enter the interrogation phase; something unique to their roles and not part of journalism. 

He came into the interview with many strong opinions on the case, but allowed me to 'allow' the parents of Madeleine McCann, to speak for themselves.  Whether this agreed with his beliefs about the case or not, he did not allow anything to interfere with this flow of information.  This is dramatically different than the propaganda or narrative driven journalism of main stream media today.  

 Mr. Hall sets a solid example for journalists interested, not in self promotion, but in information.  

                                             What's next?

Next up is the written analysis of this particular McCann interview for readers.  It will be more in depth than most blog entries, and for those interested in studying analysis, it is of value to see how we avoid interpreting a subject's words, instead, we embrace them and seek to learn why a specific word was used.  

On Thursday, December 1st, I intend to bring a team of analysts through the work, but with a singular focus:  Sexual Abuse. 

According to the words of the McCanns, Madeleine was not sold into sexual slavery but died in Portugal.  This is most evidenced in that Maddie was "beyond parental concern"; something that parents who know their child is deceased often indicate.  This is why so many thousands of people, particularly in the UK, felt strongly that the McCanns were not truthful.  Many comments reveal the line of thinking:  'the McCanns are more concerned about themselves than the child...', of which the analysis agrees. 

Was Madeleine a victim of child abuse?

This is an open question in that child abuse investigations include:

Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse 
Emotional Abuse (which can differ from Verbal Abuse) 
 as well as the number one form of child abuse in terms of scope, "Neglect."

In all child abuse investigations, a safety "assessment" is made.  Regardless of the allegation, all aspects of child abuse are explored, including:

Sexual Abuse:  Doors and Lights 

In statement analysis, the topic of sexual abuse is so broad that it requires not only competent study, research and application, but advanced work as well.  

We do not interpret:  we listen. 

We also ask, "why?"

"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was."   

John Ramsey on the discovery of murdered Jonbenet Ramsey.  

First, we believe him.  

We believe he opened the door.

We believe he turned on the light. 

We believe she was there. 

We do not interpret or assign any alternative meaning to the words.  

We do ask "why?" in our analysis.  

Why did he need to tell us that he opened the door?
Why did he need to tell us that he turned on the light?

The "Law of Economy" says he could have simply said, "I found her in the basement."  

Instead, before the 'finding', we have two distinct and unnecessary inclusions:  

"door" and "lights."

Decades of research has found an association between the unnecessary use of these words and sexual activity, including childhood sexual abuse. 

It is not difficult to understand why. 

Here is a short lesson:


If a child is sexually abused in her home, in her own bed, and by a trusted adult, the trauma is more severe than we currently understand.  

The heightened hormonal alert can sometimes leave imprinted sensory descriptions upon the brain that stay with the victim her (or his) entire life.  

Consider repeat sexual abuse of a child where the child has a distinct and hormonally elevated memory of the sound of a door opening.  

The child will suffer.  This can be anything from self-destructive promiscuity to compromised immune system to un or underdeveloped brain processing, to...self loathing, substance abuse and a life time of hyper vigilance and night terrors.  

The child will suffer. 

Some will go on to reoffend.  

Others may become "failure to protect" parents, while the vast majority of them become extremely protective; sometimes to the detriment of the child's development.  

The "door" is remembered by the brain and will, at times, unnecessarily enter the language.  

We do not interpret the "door" as something other than a door:  We ask "why" the subject used it and we explore for possible child sexual abuse: 

his own, as a victim, or possibly as a predator.  

Since "doors", when used unnecessarily in a statement, is sometimes linked to childhood sexual abuse, we next look at the word "light" in the same way. 

The word "light" expresses energy and we find it, when used unnecessarily, as a possible signal of sexual activity.  

When someone writes, "I turned off the light and went to sleep", we see the action of turning off a light as not necessary to say.  We then seek to learn why the subject felt the need to tell us the light was turned off and we sometimes find:

it is due to a negative sexual experience; sometimes impotency or rejection.  

In John Ramsey's statement, we find that in the murder of a little girl who was in a "sexualized environment", was a bed wetter, and who had been treated for repeat urinary tract infections, two indications of sexual activity (including one child sexual abuse specific) in one sentence.  

We then look at other statements by the parents to learn more about this.  

                                      Analysis Assistance

We often find, particularly in a confession or admission, that the subject is now willing to "help" us learn.  This is one of the most marvelous educational opportunities any analyst can experience:

The subject's commentary on your analysis.  

I first experienced this years ago in a case of theft where a suspect was cleared by a well experienced law enforcement investigator.  

She had allowed for her person and vehicle to be searched and was cooperative with the investigation, including a thorough interview.  

The officer was convinced she "didn't do it" to the point where he was angry at the analysis.  This was my first encounter with "junk science" (also said about polygraph, voice stress analysis) from within law enforcement.  

He did not want to do a joint interview and declined the analysis before he interviewed her, calling upon his decades of experience instead. 

The statement she had written showed not only the theft, but the time of the theft, the mechanisms of the theft and her motive. 

I interviewed her twice.  

It is in the follow up interview that we get our most confessions or admissions.  (An admission is a confession without moral responsibility.  In this case, she admitted the theft, but denied it was immoral to do so as she felt justified).  

After the admission, I asked her if she would "take me through" the analysis.  

It was amazing.  

When, for example, she wrote, "did my work assignment" without the dropped pronoun, she told me, "Well, actually I didn't do it.  I went out for a smoke, instead."  

Where she wrote, "I sat down with the supervisor" she confirmed:

a.  "sat" as body posture was added as she was very tense;
b.  "with" showed the distance between them:  they strongly disagreed about work hours
c.  "the supervisor" is a strong signal of a "bad relationship" between them.  She said, "I can't stand her!"

When it came time to show her the exact moment of the theft and how she did it, she was amazed and confirmed it. 

I finally asked her,

"How did you fool the investigator?"

She said it was "easy" and that she cried a little and he did most of the talking.  She said it was like "he did the work for me." 

In Analytical Interviewing, we not only let the subject do 80% or more of the talking, we do our best to use only the subject's words, avoiding introducing any new words.  

Interestingly enough, local law enforcement refused to believe she had admitted the theft.

I had her put it in writing.  

The twist of fate?

The original investigator had to deliver the court summons.  He was not pleased.  

A subject who admits or confesses is a golden opportunity for personal growth for an investigator.  It increases resolve, confidence in the analysis, true enough, but much more, it broadens his understanding of how powerful this tool is.  

For training at home, or through hosting a seminar, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services.  

This is for police, journalists, human resource professionals, therapists, and so many other professions where detecting deception is needed.  

We offer tuition payment plans, as well as an automatic 12 months of e-support:  your work is "proofed."

Everyone makes mistakes.  If you are formally trained, you are given the opportunity for precise correction of the error, while in study, and will learn how to spot error, and where to key in on missing information.  

With this support, you will never submit an errant report or opinion, if you have your work checked by other professionals.  

This is key to learning.  

Stay tuned. 

I hope to publish analysis and findings on Friday, December 2nd, 2016, as we continue to study the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and sift through the deception offered by the parents.  


Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Conclusion

 This is the third and final video of the interview and the analysis will post afterwards. 

 Some may have already noted that within the language, there is a linguistic association with sexual abuse. In every and any child abuse investigation, sexual abuse is covered even if not alleged. In statement analysis, there are various linguistic connections to sexual abuse that must be explored. 

 It could enter the language, for example, of 

 a. Professionals who work in the field of child abuse. This includes doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists, investigators and teachers. Even being concerned about possible sexual abuse can trigger indicators within the language. 

 b. It could be that the adult subject is a victim of childhood sexual abuse which is showing forth in the language.

 c. It could be that the adult subject is a perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse. 

 d. It could be that a family is involved in child sexual abuse. 

 This last one is something that when I was first confronted with, I did not believe to be true. I had long heard rumors of such in rural areas where neighbors perpetrated acts of sexual abuse upon each others' children. It was difficult to accept, even under a burden of proof, until I obtained an admission. (not a confession, which would have included the assertion that what was done was morally wrong). This changed my thinking towards such and I eventually learned (and accepted) that this practice does go on more than we may realize and that it infects society at all socio-economic levels.

Simply put, money and education are not  exemptions from the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child.  

In Islam, there is pedophilia of "child marriages" as well as an acceptance of the rape of young boys, while condemning homosexuals to death.  

 Jonbenet Ramsey was a victim of sexual abuse. 

 Not only were there the obvious signs, including frequent urinary tract infections, bed wetting and the overt sexualization of the child, but there were linguistic indicators within the language of the father seen through the lens of statement analysis. 

 The 'death scene' was staged but his words gave him away.  

 In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report.

If you are interested in training, please see Hyatt Analysis Services for training opportunities in detecting deception.  

The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Part Two

Part Three & Announcement to follow.  

Friday, November 25, 2016

Statement Analysis: The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Part One

There are several elements within the language, from part one through part three, that will highlight:

1.  What an "embedded confession" looks like
2.  The verbal indicators that bring sexual abuse into this case. 

We allow the words to guide us.  

You will see that the parents show no concern for the missing child's welfare, as Madeleine was beyond all help or "concern", within their language.  

The analysis will be published after Part Three of the interview.  

Sherri Papinni Found Alive

 34-year-old mother of two, Sherri Papini has been found safe three weeks after she went missing while jogging in northern California, the Shasta County Sheriff's Department said Thursday.

Sherri Papini was found in Yolo County, California, about 140 miles from the Mountain Gate trail where she was last seen.

Sheriff Tom Bosenko said Papini was spotted on the side of a road early Thursday by a driver.

"She is safe, in stable condition and receiving medical clearance at an undisclosed hospital. She has been reunited with her husband."

Papini told authorities she had been held and had freed herself from restraints, Bosenko said.

Authorities are now looking for two women in a dark SUV in connection with the case, the sheriff added. They reportedly are armed. There is no known motive in the case, authorities said Thursday.

An iPhone, a pair of earbuds and a few strands of what was believed to be her hair were the only leads discovered in the days after Papini went missing November 2. They were found on a jogging path not far from the Papinis home.

Neighbors told authorities Papini was last seen in the mid- to late-morning or early afternoon of November 2, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said after her disappearance. She was wearing a pink jogging top.

Later that day, her husband, Keith, arrived home and it was unusually quiet, he said 

"On normal days, I would open the door and my family comes, runs and gives me a hug," he told the station.

Here he is telling us what happens on normal days; he is not attempting to portray this day as "normal."  

Papini was not home. Nor were the couple's two children -- ages 2 and 4. Her husband told the station that he called their day care center and learned the children hadn't been picked up.

Papini used an app to track down his wife's smartphone;  It was down the street from their home. "That's when I knew she had been taken or abducted, in my opinion," he told the station. Papini reported his wife missing.

Sheila Koester, Sherri's older sister, said, 
"She is an incredible human being.  Best mom I've ever seen."

Keith Papini said he hadn't told the children their mother was missing.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Analysis Error and Corrections

With analysis, if the conclusion is errant, we can (and must) go back and trace the root of the error.  It is a scientific process that allows for input and conclusion, repetition, input and conclusion, and so on.  

If the analysis is thoroughly done, the conclusion is very likely based upon at least several points within the language.  This means that the analyst must have erred in, for example, four or five separate places and there must be a different explanation for the sensitivity shown.  

Analysis by top professionals is almost ways checked by other professionals.  

An amateur often makes a conclusion that is not supported by the statement and the correction ends up being a great lesson.  The most common error made by amateurs is a rush to judgment.  This means taking a single indicator of deception and concluding deception by it.  Even upon review, the indicator of deception was likely an indication of sensitivity that had an alternate explanation.  Once the truth is learned, the sensitivity question is usually answered.  

When the analysis conclusion is based upon, let's say 5 points of sensitivity, each one of these points must be reviewed and re-considered, but it is a lot.  Would it mean that on each of these 5 points, the analyst was incorrect?

The greater the number of sensitivity (or deception) indicators, the less likely error is going to exist.  

When To Dig In One's Heels 

When the analysis is based upon overwhelming points of sensitivity throughout a statement or interview, I encourage the analyst to make no changes:  let it stand and see what time does to it.  

Here is why:

I have seen some very talented analysts say, "I must have been wrong; the subject passed the polygraph."  

This comes after the analyst's work has been reviewed by another analyst and two analysts found the exact same result.  

Slow down.  

I always ask that the polygraph pre-screen interview be reviewed for contamination.  

A polygraph when administered without contamination and only with the subject's own words is near impossible to beat.  

I have had two cases in which analysis and polygraph results have differed.  One case was extreme.  In both cases, I stood to be "wrong" and plainly so.  

Case One:   Child Molestation 

1.  Statement  

The accused wrote out a statement prior to the interview.  I concluded that mother's boyfriend molested her daughter while mother was not home, and, according to the statement, it took place in the little girl's bedroom shortly after dinner.  

I sent the statement to an instructor, without my analysis.  He sent back his finding:  the subject was deceptive, likely molested the little girl in her bedroom sometime early evening but before she went to bed.  

2.  Interviews 

The little girl's interview was recorded.  In her own language, she showed that he had 'tickled' her chest area under her shirt, while she was playing with dolls on her bed after dinner.  Mom was at work.  She said her mommy's "friend", using the name "Uncle" played this game but she did not like it.  

The mother was interviewed who was truthful in not knowing what had happened but stated that she did not believe it did happen.  She stated that her daughter was not known for making things up and "really liked" her new boyfriend. 

The suspect was interviewed and gave a lengthy account of his day, in great detail, but gave only a short account from dinner time to bed time.  His interview affirmed the analysis but he denied contact.  

Collateral interviews showed no concerns about boyfriend, and no concerns about child making up things.  

Boyfriend took and passed his polygraph.  

The analysis was plain, including the skip of time and the timeline the little girl gave.  The local police dismissed the analysis, and the boyfriend was permitted to return to the home where I learned, years later, he re-offended on the victim.  

He passed the polygraph because he "tickled" not "molested" his victim.  The polygraph used language that was not in the internal dictionary of the suspect.  This is precisely how we teach suspects to lie and to falsely pass a polygraph.  

This second case is much worse:  

Case Two:  Murder 

In this case, we have a battle, from my perspective,  of two forces.  One is Goliath, strong, large and overwhelming, the other is tiny David, young and weak.  

On one side is analysis of a 4 minute statement; nothing else.  This is David.  

a.  statement analysis of a 911 call 

nothing else.  

But on the other side:

a.  A complete and thorough police investigation with a cumulative 20 years experience in investigation and training.  

b.  All known facts of the case, privy to test results, interviews (plural) with the subject,

c.  collateral interviews 

d.  forensic evidence

e.  Suspect cooperation

f.  Suspect passed a polygraph

On one side is a short analysis where nothing else is known, while on the other side, there is a mountain of reasons to overrule the analysis.  I, personally, hold great weight to the polygraph. 

                            Which would you believe?

What would you do if you were told all of these things, and then were told, "statement analysis is junk science.  He passed his polygraph.  We collected all the evidence..."

If this were not enough, consider that in court, one of the two original investigators would testify against the conclusion of the analysis and stand upon the original clearing of the suspect.  

I, and those who worked with me, including in depth review later, concluded "deception indicated", which is not enough for a murder case.  In the analysis we concluded both "deception indicated" and "guilty knowledge" of the murder, but still, I was able to show the motive of the murder, plainly. 

In other words, there was no other conclusion for me to follow, and there was no way of dismissing each indication of deception, sensitivity and guilt.  

Yet, one short analysis versus an in-depth police investigation, a ton of material unknown to me, and a suspect who has passed his polygraph. 

He was found guilty of the murders after initially being cleared by police. 

When error exists in analysis, it can, and must, be traced and corrected.  By using a scientific process, when in error, we may find and correct the error. 

But when a statement is overwhelming, and no error can be found, even in light of various news announcements, the analysis should b left to stand. 

There are such cases.  

No one is willing to say "Casey Anthony was found not guilty, therefore..." and, there is other cases that have been dropped or even cleared by police in which the analysis still stands:

Baby Ayla.  

Baby Lisa. 

Amanda Blackburn.  

Several years ago, analysis showed that Lena Lunsford had guilty knowledge of her daughter's death but up until recently, the analysis appeared 'incorrect' by the standard of arrest or adjudication.  

When analysis is 'overwhelming' and has been checked, rechecked, and reviewed by other trained professionals, it should be left to stand. 

And wait...

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" has proven to be truth. 

Truth is timeless. 

Truth is not impacted by time, culture, or opinion.  

In either of the two above cases, particularly the second, it would have been the easier path to fold the analysis but the road of less resistance is not always the correct course to take.  

As analysts learn to work in depth, they learn to trust the results of the science, and from past errors, learn how to go back and trace the origin of error, but when the conclusion of the matter is plain, they must stay with it. 

For formal training for you or your department or business, click Here

Knowing how to detect deception is to enter an investigation fueled with truth.